Pages

May 6, 2010

(CNSNews.com) - While pointing out that it is the responsibility of the federal government to secure the U.S.-Mexico border, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) said Thursday it is cheaper to treat teens for drug use than it is to interdict drugs being smuggled across the border.

CNSNews.com pointed out to the speaker at her weekly press briefing that a recent Justice Department report indicated that one in five U.S. teenagers used drugs last year, and then asked: “Are you committed to sealing the border against the influx of illegal drugs from Mexico and, if so, do you have a target date in mind for getting that done?”

“Well if your question is about drugs, I’m for reducing demand in the United States,” said Pelosi. “That is what our responsibility is on this subject. The RAND Corporation a few years ago did a report that said it would be much less expensive for us to, through prevention first and foremost, but through treatment on demand to reduce demand in our country, is the cheapest way to solve this problem.

“Incarceration is the next cheapest,” Pelosi continued. “It costs seven times more to incarcerate than to have treatment on demand. It costs 15 times more to interdict at the border. And it costs 25 times more with eradication of the cocoa leaf. This is an issue that it is very important to our country because of what it’s doing to our teenagers. That is the problem, what it is doing to our people.”

The RAND Corporation is a non-partisan, non-profit institution aimed at helping to “improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis.”

According to the Justice Department’s National Drug Threat Assessment for 2010, “Nineteen percent of youth aged 12 to 17 report past year illicit drug use.” The assessment said that Mexican drug trafficking organizations (DTOs) are now the predominant supplier of illegal drugs in the United States. “Law enforcement reporting and case initiation data show that Mexican DTOs control most of the wholesale cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine distribution in the United States, as well as much of the marijuana distribution,” said the assessment.

Pelosi did say it was the responsibility of the federal government to control the border, although she did not believe that would prevent illicit drug use by teens in the United States.

“Controlling our border is our responsibility,” she said. “So, whether you’re talking about stopping drugs from coming in or having a well-managed migration policy, we have a responsibility to secure our border. But I don’t know what you meant by ‘seal’ and I think sealing the border doesn’t do a whole lot to reduce demand in the United States. As I travel the country, I know that kids are on meth and they can make it in their bath tub.”

To solve the drug problem, she said, requires reducing demand. “Let’s secure our border for every reason that we have responsibility to do so,” she said, “but if it’s talk, if our purpose is to solve that problem, we must reduce demand and the best way to do that is through prevention and through treatment on demand.”

Last week, CNSNews.com similarly asked Rep. Raul Grijalva (D.-Ariz.), who represents a district that covers 300 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border, if he was committed to sealing the border against the inflow of illegal drugs. Rather than answer the question, Grijalva turned and walked away, eventually shouting back at the reporter that it was “punkish” to ask the question.

CNSNews.com: Madame Speaker, the Justice Department has reported that one in five teenagers used illicit drugs last year and that most of those drugs came across the border from Mexico. Are you committed to sealing the border against the influx of illegal drugs from Mexico and, if so, do you have a target date in mind for getting that done?

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.): "Well if your question is about drugs, I’m for reducing demand in the United States. That is what our responsibility is on this subject. The RAND Corporation a few years ago did a report that said it would be much less expensive for us to, through prevention first and foremost, but through treatment on demand to reduce demand in our country, is the cheapest way to solve this problem.

"Incarceration is the next cheapest. It costs seven times more to incarcerate than to have treatment on demand. It costs 15 times more to interdict at the border. And it costs 25 times more with eradication of the cocoa leaf. This is an issue that it is very important to our country because of what it’s doing to our teenagers. That is the problem, what it is doing to our people.

"Controlling our border is our responsibility. So, whether you’re talking about stopping drugs from coming in or having a well-managed migration policy, we have a responsibility to secure our border. But I don’t know what you meant by ‘seal’ and I think sealing the border doesn’t do a whole lot to reduce demand in the United States. As I travel the country, I know that kids are on meth and they can make it in their bath tub. So, again if the issue is predicated on your first premise, which is one in five teenagers in America has used drugs, is that the point?

CNSNews.com: "Yes."

Pelosi: "Okay, so let’s, you know, let’s secure our border for every reason that we have responsibility to do so, but if it’s talk, if our purpose is to solve that problem, we must reduce demand and the best way to do that is through prevention and through treatment on demand."

May 3, 2010

I'd like to have a nickel for every football team who lost a game they were winning because they switched to a "prevent defense," at the end. There is a huge difference between playing to win and playing not to lose. Too bad the Republican Party can't make the distinction.

2010 is looking like a wipeout for Democrats — one completely of their own making. Four years of a Democratically-controlled Congress, coupled with two years of the most radically leftist administration in the history of the republic have scared the hell out of Americans who now know what unbridled progressivism looks like. That many predicted the level of arrogance and contempt progressives would inflict on the country were they elected was of little consequence. Too many Americans who voted in 2008 never lived through the Carter years, and unfortunate as it is, some people never believe anything until they experience it first-hand.

Now they have, and one would think that the general level of revulsion — despite every effort by the media and Democrats to underplay it — would galvanize a Republican party which had been left for dead as recently as two years ago. One would think now is precisely the time to present the American public with game-winning, principled positions on issues. One would think this is a grand opportunity for Republicans to play to win — big.

One would be wrong. By every indication, Republicans prefer "prevent defense." They prefer playing not to lose.Such a strategy is beyond Republicans' traditional spinelessness. It is the unprincipled cynicism of a party whose "core values" can be reduced to "vote for us because we suck less than Democrats." That may get them through 2010, but it's no strategy for long-term health. Once again, here's some thoughts from an American sick and tired of being forced to choose between really bad and stunningly awful...

Fair Use

This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research, educational, or satirical purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Material posted on this blog is made available for educational and informative purposes, and as such constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. , section 107 of the US Copyright Law. The material on this blog is provided without profit for benign research and educational purposes.